We had an evacuation event at work yesterday (which turned out to be a false alarm). While we were milling around in the parking lot I spotted this Chevelle SS, which very much reminded me of the cars of my high school days. Cragar rims with huge rubber on the rear was a staple for “making your car go look faster.”

Some quick Googling told me that the hood pins and cowl induction on this car were part of the factory ZL2 package. The dual parking/side marker lamps identify it a 1971 model.

The squirreliest engine option for this generation Chevelle was a 450-hp, 454 cu in (7.4-liter) high performance big-block capable of sub-six second 0-60 times. The absence of “454” below the SS fender badge possibly indicates a 396 cu in (6.5-liter) engine. Maybe not, though, as the SS trim option had become a largely decorative package that could be had with almost any 1971-1972 Chevelle engine/transmission combination.

Regardless of what’s under the hood, with a little faded patina on the paint this car would have looked right at home in the parking lot of Chapman High School, back in 1979…

41 Comments

After the 1967 Impalas, my love for the full-size car waned – I went to mid-size and below.

I have a real soft spot for the 1968-69 and the 70-72 Chevelles – I’d own any one or more of them if I could, especially a 1972 “Heavy Chevy” one. The 1972 models had the cool round dual tail lights, as “god” intended…

The example shown is gorgeous. As it doesn’t show the 454 cu. in., it could be a 402, I think the 396 was gone by then. Basically the same engine. Hard to believe just how beautiful these Chevelles were. Of course I’m referring to the coupes, whether pillarless or not.

Yes…these cars symbolized so much in my life back then…

The world began to crash with the arrival of the 1973 models…you know why! Can you pronounce “Colonnade”?

You’re correct on the 402 displacement, although Chevrolet continued to market it as the 396 for a while… Speculation is that the emissions requirements were different above 400 cid which is why they bored the engine out a little.

Read something when doing some 67-72 engine research for a pickup. The article said that the 402 went in trucks but the same engine was a 396 in cars because of the name recognition. I guess the money invested in advertising was not to be wasted. For whatever reason, it was exactly the same engine according to the article. I got it from the internet so it must be true.

IINM, it was just the various SS-396 models, in which Chevy had invested in the “396” branding, that continued to call the engines a 396 in 1970. In everything else — car or truck — it was called a 400. But regardless of whether it was called a 396 or a 400, everything got the same engine, which actually displaced 402 cubic inch inches. For the 1971 model year, the ruse was dropped (the part about calling the same engine two different things, anyway) and the engine was labelled a 400 across the board.

To confuse matters further, I’ve been told that some vehicles built in the early part of the 1970 model year actually used 396 cubic inch engines, built before the changeover to the 402. I can’t vouch for the accuracy of that.

1970 was the last year that the Chevelle SS came standard with the 396 4bbl. For ’71, it moved down to the 350 as its base engine; I think it was the 4bbl version, but I’m not positive. For ’72, it dropped all the way down to the 307 2bbl; essentially, you could get an SS with any Chevelle engine except for the six. For its final year in 1973, it went back to the 350, but I believe a 2bbl this time. So 1972 was the only year the 307 was ever offered.

Aren’t we starting to mix engine blocks a bit? I seem to remember that the 348/396/402/454 were big blocks, while the 265/283/327/350/400 were small blocks. The 400 small block was totally a sedan engine, with siamesed cylinders it didn’t have the hop up potential of the 350. Or, at least that’s the way I remember it from back then.

There were two “400” engines; the bored and stroked small block, and the big block 402 was referred to as a “400” in some literature. In fact, I think it never was called a “402”, only a 400 (or 396).

The sbc 400 was used in a lot of trucks too.

MCT

Posted August 24, 2012 at 8:30 AM

As Paul stated, there were two different engines that Chevy called the “400” (whatever their exact displacement may have really been), one a small block and one a big block.

At least in passenger cars, I believe that the small block 400 was initially used only for a 2bbl version that was exclusive to the Caprice. From 1970-72, all other “400” engines were 4bbl and were the big block 402.

The big block 402 went out of production at the end of the 1972 model year. After that point, all “400” engines were the small block. A 4bbl small block eventually appeared but it was not the high -performance engine that the 4bbl big block 402 (and the 396 before it) had been.

Junqueboi

Posted August 24, 2012 at 9:53 AM

The small 400 was the biggest engine available in the 4-wheel drive 10-25 series GM trucks and not available in the 2WD versions, oddly enough. Not sure why.

At least through 1970, the 396 was actually the “402”, but Chevy kept the 396 CID designation because of it’s reputation . . . . in my adolescent years the Heavy Chevy was a new car (1971-72); my favorite color was orange, white vinyl top and white vinyl seats; RWL Goodyear Polyglas GT’s on the rallye wheels with chorme beauty trim rings.

This car had round gauges on the instrument panel, a center console shifter (automatic) and bucket seats, so it likely is a gen-u-ine SS. Of course, it could have had a 350 2bbl originally for all we know…

I don’t doubt it’s likely an genuine SS, which was just a trim package in 1971. It’s the cowl induction that makes me wonder, since as best as I remember, it was only available on the big blocks. If so, why would someone remove either the original 396 or 454 badges, which are such a big part of what these cars are all about? Pure speculation, but given the evidence, it makes me think there’s a pretty good chance this is a SS with a 350, later graced with the popular domed hood with Cowl Air.

I guess I’ve just become a skeptic about classic hot Chevys, as there seem to be a lot more ’69 Z28s around than I saw in 1969; and the same goes for the SS 396/454 Chevelles, GTOs, etc. I don’t begrudge folks their enjoyment, it’s just that the authenticity factor has become pretty wobbly.

Yeah, Paul, no kidding. These things seemed to spawn somewhere along the way. Too many “clones” out there, and I don’t believe I have ever seen an SS Chevelle with that hood scoop, let alone hood pins from the factory, but I just focused on the car itself, not so much how powerful they were, because even then, I usually – not always (!) – drove my avatar quite conservatively – gas added up even at 25¢ a gallon, especially on my air force pay!

Chicagoland

Posted August 23, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Well, they certainly had hood pins in the official 1970-71 Chevelle brochures. Even the Heavy Chevy had them optional.

Boy, I agree with you on the proliferation of tarted up grocery-getter Chevys. The cowl induction on this car may well have been an ‘upgrade,’ but keep in mind that cowl induction was a separate option on top of the SS option. Presumably you could have ordered it with a 350… And Zach, the hood pins were indeed part of the factory option!

Chevy was playing a lot of games from ’70-’72… Insurance rates on the scary-fast ’70 cars were a big part of what led to the SS trim becoming just that, a trim option. One of the sites I looked at for research said its very hard to determine what engine a SS had from the factory without having the actual paperwork in hand – there were simply too many ways it could be optioned, even with the SS Equipment group, and the absence or presence of certain features doesn’t really mean anything one way or the other.

The only fender badging difference for ’71 was on the 454, all other engines, including the 402/396 had the plain SS badge.

“The only fender badging difference for ’71 was on the 454, all other engines, including the 402/396 had the plain SS badge.”

I believe that Chevy stopped branding the 402 cubic inch engine as a “396” for ’71 (by the early part of the ’70 model year at the latest, it wasn’t actually 396 cubic inches anymore, or any different from the engine Chevy was calling a “400” elsewhere) — that probably explains why the 1971 engine callouts were limited to the 454 only.

* rant *
The clonage (they’re not “tributes”) has burned me out on GTOs, 1st gen Camaros, pre ’73 Chevelles & all Novas. The guy across the street from me has been tarting up his ’66 SS396 Chevelle over the last few years. His example used to be kind of neat because it still had its AM Radio & console shifted automatic. Nothing fancy, just “real”.

His car is at a shop right now getting its floorboard cut up for the “factory” 4-speed. Now his car can be just like everyone else’s Chevelle SS at the show. He drives it into this trailer & shows it, winning trophy after trophy because it’s “all original”. Of course it’ll never see second gear because it’s only driven a few yards at a time. Blecch!

Last year I suggested that he back it out of his garage early one morning, ease it out onto the road in front of his house, and just bury the accelerator until the speedometer needle quits moving. Not surprisingly, I got the “you’re such a dumbass” fake smile & nod. Why even own one..
* end rant *

Now this Subject vehicle…
not quite my style but I’d be honored getting smoked by it at a traffic light. No aftermarket wheel could be more perfect on this ride than the Cragar S/S.

What I want to own is a ’70 – ’72 Malibu 400. They’re rarer than the SS cars & I remember only seeing two or three of them when I was just a kid. I suppose many survivors were tramp-stamped with ‘SS’ gear leaving very few intact examples.

Make mine dark forest green, maroon, or that common medium blue please. Bench seat/column shift will work & ribbon speedometer will be just fine! Dog dishes or the two optional wheelcovers would be my preference. I’d probably be the hypocrite & add a dash clock if it weren’t already so-equipped.

jpcavanaugh

Posted August 23, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Amen. Whenever I am at a car show I have pretty much stopped even looking at the cars you mention – they are all alike. Unfortunately, the same thing is happening on a lot of A and B body Mopars too. I would take a 6 cylinder sedan with dog dishes and radio delete any day over one of the “tribute” queens. The only way I could get even slightly interested in a clone would be if it were equipped with the “show car package” (as you so ably put it) so that it could be driven and enjoyed, since the real ones are so awfully expensive. But no. Your neighbors car is, for me, of no interest.

Billy Rockfish

Posted August 23, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Me too. I look for originality . . . that makes me saliva where the retro-mods and the “was a Tempest now a poseur Goat” makes me sorta say, “ho hum.”

Give me a plain jane 2-door sedan with S/S equipment (even if it wasn’t built orignally that way, but made up with authentic period parts to look the part), then I might sport wood.

A common story. The problem is that all creativity has gone out of that whole realm of automotive activity. Hot rodding was once a creative, exciting exploration of what was possible. In the early days, new ideas and solutions were being found and created every day. Bright young guys and kids were drawn to it for that reason.

Today there is ZERO creativity in all these look-alike poseur-mobiles. I can’t even muster any appreciation for the craftsmanship, because I’m so sick of seeing the same car over and over and over and… Not to mention all too many of them have been built at shops, and not in the driveway. Whatever.

There’s a very powerful reason I avoid those kind of cars.

The rat rod thing started out as a terrific antidote, but it too has become increasingly formulaic. I still prefer them, and there is still some creativity going into them.

Chicagoland

Posted August 23, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Well, there is a lot of ‘conformity’ since anyone who dares to be different is ridiculed tremendously. So, to ‘fit in’ car fanatics do what the ‘group says’, or else be cast out.

Seen one red ’69 Camaro, seen them all. I totally agree that car shows can be boring, with same 1950s music and ‘know it alls’ getting everything wrong.

BigOldChryslers

Posted August 23, 2012 at 3:15 PM

> The rat rod thing started out as a terrific antidote, but it too has become increasingly formulaic. I still prefer them, and there is still some creativity going into them.

What boggles my mind is that there are now guys that are paying big bucks to build a hot rod, then going out of their way to paint it with lots of “patina” so it looks like a rat rod…. but really it isn’t.

In my high school years, there were two examples I remember of “reverse engineering” – going from SS to lower status. One guy in auto shop whose name eludes me now had a white ’66 Chevelle Mailbu SS that WAS an SS 396 but had instead a (albeit built up) 283 mated to the M-22. Another was a girlfried of a buddy of mine who’s Dad was a mechanic. He rebuilt/restored a ’68 Camaro SS that had been a 396 SS RS package (down to the shift console gauges) sporting (this is a true story) a 250-6 in it’s place!! I remember getting a chance to drive that car . . . . it really wasn’t all that bad (four speed), but the juice lifter, in line six whine in this car seemed almost like motordom heresy. At least her Dad removed the “396” badges from the front fenders, filling in the holes on the body work/repaint . . .

That’s a lot more detail info. It also says: “The cowl induction hood was still available in 1971 but, “Available only when SS Equipment and 365-hp or 425-hp engine are ordered.” I don’t think the cowl induction was ever available for anything but the big blocks.

Those are both 454s. So if it was a genuine ’71 factory 454 with available cowl-induction, what happened to the 454 badges? Isn’t splitting fine hairs fun? 🙂

I can’t stand the conformity. What I love about old cars is the variety. They came in all colors, all body styles, and all kinds of weird equipement combinations. The diversity is what is so fun. Sure, everybody loves the certain model in a certain color with certain equipemnt. But why not love the other ones too?

When I was in high school, I sometimes thought about putting all of the XL parts onto my 67 Galaxie 500 convertible. The bucket seats and console would have been how I would have ordered the car, but it was a basic bench seat car. Likewise, I would have ordered the 4 speed and something other than that awful light green. But I made peace with it (other than changing to the optional wheelcovers with the exposed chrome lug nuts). I guess everyone’s temptations to tart up their cars to replicate the coolest of the cool comes from the same place as some folks desire for plastic surgery and hair plugs. The car is what the car is. Keep it nice and enjoy it.

I know..I know.. I WISH I could see it that way across the board but I just can’t. With all the variety available way back when…seeing any old car has always been a real treat to me… “what options did this one come with?”. Old cars are “history” to me & were infinitely more beautiful & appealing than the “pods” being built today.

All the cloning & fakery turned me off on car shows because I wanted to see what these cars truly were…not what owner X “thought” they should be. I didn’t grow up while these cars were new & therefore didn’t have any exposure then…so I guess I want that now.

I have no right to condemn anyone for modifying their vehicles but sometimes it’s hard to “refrain my disdain” at times. I’ll try to back off some 🙂

After rereading your post again…I’ll have to admit I’ve been very tempted to change colors on my ’73 Bonneville. It’s Desert Sand (aka BEIGE) and I’m a blue/green type of person. There’s not much value in ’73 Bonneville coupes but Golden Olive, Verdant Green, or Slate Blue would look so much nicer with that white interior. I’ll probably never do it…but I see what you mean.

“It makes me wonder how an accomplished musician can enjoy listening to music.”

I cured that by listening to contemporary jazz/big band standards – you know – music with REAL instruments and TALENT to play them and REAL voices to sing them. Diana Krall, Harry Connick, Jr., Bobby Caldwell, Buble’, etc…

Now you know why I lusted after that stock six cylinder Camaro a few weeks ago…it was real. Or close enough.

Listening to that music fulltime is like quiting to me. I suppose you may have your reasons, but there’s so much old rock that needs discovering.

jpcavanaugh

Posted August 24, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Old jazz, too. I just stumbled on an old tenor sax player from the late 40s into the mid 60s named Brew Moore. Enjoyable stuff. You have hit it – really, there is about 500 years of great music out there if a person is willing to open up and sample some of it.

When I was 10-11 y/o and big into cars, other boys only liked baseball, and was teased. Then when driving age, suddenly these guys were ‘car nuts’ driving around the neighborhood ‘look at me’.

Similarly, I get annoyed when an average middle aged guy suddenly buys a ’69 Camaro and is now a ‘car expert’. But then ask about other cars and get ‘they are junk’.
Or, they have a Chevelle and think all of them were ‘muscle cars’ back then.

In mid-seventies Northern California high schools, THIS was the car to DIE for!! There were two that I remember and one of them (Steve Castro) would bring ’em into auto shop – Steve’s was a blue with black stripe ’72 402 SS (Big Block – not a California car as the big block 402 was n/a in Ca.), the other one was a black ’70 with white stripes. Both TH400’s . . . . then we had some guys that had two different Chevelle SS’s – a white ’66 that had the 396 out of it and a built up 283 in it’s place (!); the other, a blue ’66 Chevelle SS with a ZL-1 427 in that one . . . a legendary street racer champion in Marin/Sonoma county, circa 1976-77.

By ’72, the SS was an appearance option. I remember the “Heavy Chevy” Chevelles of ’71 and ’72. Heavy Chevies were strictly appearance options, and a “budget” psuedo-muscle car . . . . kind of like early Camaro RS’s. Heavy Chevies would give you straight sixes up to 400 small blocks. Most that I saw usually had vinyl tops and period Chevy rallye wheels. Although the SS was an appearance option as well beginning in ’72, you got a 350 V-8 as standard fare and a little more aggressive looks.

“Although the SS was an appearance option as well beginning in ’72, you got a 350 V-8 as standard fare and a little more aggressive looks.”

In ’72, for one year only, the SS actually came with the 307 as its base engine (though you could certainly upgrade to a larger engine, and the SS opened up the possibility of getting a 454, which still wasn’t available in lesser Chevelles). This was the only year from 1966 on that Chevelle SS models were built with anything smaller than a 350.

If there is a Detroit Muscle Car Hall of Fame-Hood Scoop Division, this one, the Chevelle SS Cowl Induction hood scoop would be near or on the top of the list of honorary inductees! Like the cherry on top of the hot fudge sundae, the hood scoop was the crowning point as to the serious intent of the car. The Mopars had their formidable Shaker scoops on their Cuda’s and Challengers, the Air Grabber on the Road Runners and Chargers, the Fords had the Cobra Jet Shaker scoops, Pontiac the Ram Air scoops on the Goats, Olds the dual forward facing scoops on the 442…….all were wonderful and clever in showing the world this car means business.

From what I understand, Chevy found that high pressure air formed at the base of the windshield. I believe some early Nascar Chevelles in 66 took advantage of this ram effect. The 69 Z/28 took this to another level but it was this one on the Chevelle that made it interesting with it’s flapper scoop opening at full throttle. I find these early 70’s scoops more interesting and pleasing to look at compared to todays seen one/seen them all K&N type cone air filter tucked in the front corner of the engine compartment.

The 70 to 72 Chevelle was such a clean design and timeless. I’m somewhat surprised GM never took advantage during the retro mania of the early 2000’s to come out with a retro bodied Chevelle based on the late Holden Monaro/Pontiac GTO.